Ubiquitination is a reversible post-translational modification that plays major roles in multiple signaling events and in determining the longevity of proteins in cells [Hershko and Ciechanover 1998; Glickman and Ciechanover 2002; Chen 2005; Ye and Rape 2009]. Over the past decade, it has become clear that the biological importance of ubiquitination rivals and may exceed that of phosphorylation, and consequently, there is great interest in deciphering the details of this process in both normal and diseased cells.
The process of ubiquitination is hierarchical and involves an enzyme cascade with increasing complexity [Hershko and Ciechanover 1998]. In the last step of the cascade, E3 ligases facilitate the transfer of ubiquitin (Ub) onto protein substrates through a covalent linkage between the C-terminal glycine of Ub and the ε-amino group of a substrate lysine. Subsequently, polymeric Ub chains are extended on the substrate through linkages between the C termini and lysines of additional Ub monomers. The nature of these Ub-substrate and Ub-Ub linkages is precisely controlled by diverse Ub ligases, and in humans, more than 600 E3 ligases mediate substrate specificity.
Deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) counteract the processes initiated by ubiquitination, and thus regulate cellular homeostasis and signaling. The human genome encodes approximately 95 putative DUBs which have been divided into five structural families, as follows [Nijman, Luna-Vargas et al. 2005]: Ubiquitin specific proteases (USPs), Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolases (UCHs), ovarian tumor proteases (OTUs), Machado-Joseph disease proteases (MJDs) and JAB1/MPN/MOV34 metalloenzymes (JAMMs). Aside from approximately eight JAMM family members, which are metalloproteases, most known human DUBs are cysteine proteases. The general understanding of deubiquitination has lagged behind the general understanding of ubiquitination within the scientific community, but several recent studies have revealed central roles for DUBs in the control of cell signaling.
In particular, the largest DUB family consists of 58 USPs that are essential for many cellular processes and pathways. For example, USP21 and USP22 have been implicated in the deubiquitination of histones [Nakagawa, Kajitani et al. 2008; Zhang, Varthi et al. 2008], while USP1, USP2a, USP7 and USP28 are involved in the DNA damage response [Cummins and Vogelstein 2004; Li, Brooks et al. 2004; Nijman, Huang et al. 2005; Zhang, Zaugg et al. 2006; Stevenson, Sparks et al. 2007]. The USP family members share a structurally conserved catalytic domain with a well-defined catalytic cleft, suggesting that it may be possible to develop a general structure-based strategy for inhibiting family members by using similar yet specific molecular entities, as has been the case for kinases that have been targeted with small molecules built on common scaffolds [Fedorov, Marsden et al. 2007]. Unfortunately, no specific inhibitors of USPs or other DUBs have yet been reported, and a lack of such inhibitors imposes a formidable road-block to attempts to understand and manipulate deubiquitination pathways for therapeutic benefit.
Numerous USPs have been implicated in diseases including neurodegeneration, haematological diseases, viral and bacterial infections, and cancer [Goldenberg, McDermott et al. 2008]. Indeed, DUBs are direct antagonists of oncogenic and tumor-suppressive E3 ligases, and USPs are increasingly seen as potential targets for cancer therapy. Several USPs are up-regulated in cancer (e.g. USP2a, USP4, USP10) [Gray, Inazawa et al. 1995; Grunda, Nabors et al. 2006; Priolo, Tang et al. 2006], are directly involved in the regulation of tumor-suppressive proteins (e.g. USP2a and USP7) [Cummins and Vogelstein 2004; Li, Brooks et al. 2004; Priolo, Tang et al. 2006] or carry mutations which are found in hereditary cancers (CYLD) [Saggar, Chernoff et al. 2008]. USP8 is implicated in ubiquitin remodeling, down regulation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), clathrin-mediated internalization, endosomal sorting, the control of receptor tyrosine kinases and it may be involved in the patho-physiology of breast cancer [Mizuno, lura et al. 2005; Avvakumov, Walker et al. 2006; Niendorf, Oksche et al. 2007]. USP21 deubiquitinates histone 2A, and in doing so, influences the methylation status of histone 3, which has a major impact on transcriptional control. More recently USP21 was also shown to be involved in NF-κB activation induced by tumor-necrosis factor α [Xu, Tan et al. 2010] and therefore could be involved in many disease areas such as cancer, inflammation, viral infections and auto-immune diseases.
One of the best-studied examples of USP function is the role of USP7 in the regulation of the tumor suppressor p53 and its associated E3 ligase mdm2. USP7 deubiquitinates both p53 and mdm2 but the net effect of its function is to stabilize mdm2, and consequently, to destabilize p53. Thus, an inhibitor of USP7 would stabilize p53 and could be a potential cancer therapeutic, because p53-induced apoptosis in response to DNA damage has been proposed as a therapeutic strategy for several cancers [Chen 2005; Colland, Formstecher et al. 2009]. Mdm2 is also deubiquitinated by USP2a, which is up-regulated in prostate cancer [Priolo, Tang et al. 2006], and thus, inhibitors of USP2a would also be promising therapeutics. Recently, it has been shown that USP10 counteracts the effects of USP7 and USP2a by deubiquitinating and stabilizing p53 [Yuan, Luo et al. 2010].
USPs are multi-domain proteins that, in addition to a catalytic domain, typically contain various Ub recognition motifs and other protein-protein interaction domains [Komander, Clague et al. 2009]. Although catalytic domains of different USPs often share low sequence homology, crystal structures have revealed a common fold that defines the family [Hu, Li et al. 2002; Reyes-Turcu, Ventii et al. 2009] and a common catalytic triad that mediates catalysis [Wilkinson 1997]. The pKa of the catalytic cysteine is lowered by a histidine, and a third residue, usually asparagine or aspartate, polarizes and aligns the histidine side-chain.
Structures of five USP catalytic domains in complex with Ub also reveal a common binding site for the substrate [Hu, Li et al. 2002; Hu, Li et al. 2005; Renatus, Parrado et al. 2006]. In all cases, Ub is bound in the same orientation and the isopeptide linkage is aligned in the active site. While the affinity of USPs for Ub is low, the contact surface between Ub and the USP is large, as for example, the contact surface of the Ub and USP7 complex is known to be 1800 Å2. Notably, despite a common function, the Ub-binding sites of USP family members differ in sequence, and consequently, the Ub-binding surfaces are similar but exhibit significant topological variation. In the case of USP7, approximately 75% of the Ub-binding surface is composed of residues that are not conserved in the USP family.
In US 2006/0099686 A1, a modified Ub was used to establish an alternative binding-scaffold to a predetermined binding partner it did not recognize before. The modified ubiquitin had the point mutations I44A, K48R, R54L, V70A, R72L, G75A and the last glycine in the protein was removed. These mutations prevented ubiquitin from interacting with its natural binding partner and avoided conjugation with other ubiquitin molecules through Lys48. In this modified ubiquitin the inventors also randomized the residues 2, 4 and 6 in the N-terminal part and residues 62-66 in addition to the point mutations to produce a continuous surface on one side of the ubiquitin and used phage display to select for high affinity variants to hydrocortisone (hapten) and proteins such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Fc part of IgG antibodies. They achieved affinities in the 170 nM-10 μM range. The surface of ubiquitin is not particularly well suited to generate binding surfaces to haptens since it lacks a cavity to allow an efficient shielding of the hydrophobic surface of a molecule like hydrocortisone. In addition, the solvent accessible binding surface covered by these residues is relatively small (500 Å2), and does not provide enough structural diversity for an efficient binding of other proteins. This explains the comparable low affinity interactions the inventors have observed which makes a diagnostic or pharmaceutical usage difficult.